- #421
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Your opinion? The amount of $65 million for small modular seems small.Astronuc said:
Your opinion? The amount of $65 million for small modular seems small.Astronuc said:
Wind and nuclear can't be compared kWh to kWh unless Wind includes the costs for backup when the wind does not blow.clancy688 said:Here's a recent report regarding French nuclear power and the actual costs:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/N...s_of_French_reactors_best_option-3101124.html
Soooo... 5 cents per kwh. Looking cheap so far, doesn't it? But then look at those 188 billion in research. And add that, too. Nearly tenfolds the price.
Onshore wind energy is not much more expensive (somewhere between 50 and 60 Euros per MWh if I remember correctly... and I'm not so sure if any country boosted its wind energy research with 200 billion bucks).
Cheap energy my ***. Renewables can hardly top that.
Here's the report in French:
http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf
mheslep said:Wind and nuclear can't be compared kWh to kWh unless Wind includes the costs for backup when the wind does not blow.
Planned and unplanned NPP outage is still less than 10% in the US, i.e. over 90% capacity factor.zapperzero said:That's allright, as long as you include planned and unplanned outages at NPPs.
mheslep said:Planned and unplanned NPP outage is still less than 10% in the US, i.e. over 90% capacity factor.
zapperzero said:I won't be nasty and tell you to add in the notional insurance premia that SHOULD have been paid to insure every NPP for such a large sum, because no company in the world would insure an NPP, ever.
Frustratingly enough, I can't get nuke accident insurance for myself and my property either...
gmax137 said:I suggest you do some looking into Price Anderson. Try to limit your research to the facts of the law rather than reading the opinions of either anti-nuke or pro-nuke bloggers. Both 'sides' tend to describe the issue in a light that supports their opinions on nuclear power. So, focus on the facts and draw your own conclusions.
sorry. I thought you had mentioned living in California. I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I don't know anything about the laws outside the US.zapperzero said:Lo and behold, I do NOT live in the US...
gmax137 said:sorry. I thought you had mentioned living in California. I must have had you mixed up with someone else. I don't know anything about the laws outside the US.
clancy688 said:Here's a recent report regarding French nuclear power and the actual costs:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/N...s_of_French_reactors_best_option-3101124.html
Soooo... 5 cents per kwh. Looking cheap so far, doesn't it? But then look at those 188 billion in research. And add that, too. Nearly tenfolds the price.
Onshore wind energy is not much more expensive (somewhere between 50 and 60 Euros per MWh if I remember correctly... and I'm not so sure if any country boosted its wind energy research with 200 billion bucks).
Cheap energy my ***. Renewables can hardly top that.
Here's the report in French:
http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf
wizwom said:The YEARLY AMORTIZED cost for the development, deployment and decomissioning will work out to the same order of magnitude, $11.6 Billion, or another 2.6 cents
Investing in new nuclear generating capacity or any other form of energy would be too expensive and come online too late, France's state audit office has concluded.
zapperzero said:That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!".
Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be?
By the way, you all should be very very scared by this, from the intro to the fine article:
The EROEI of France has dipped below 1, while no-one was looking.
No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous.zapperzero said:That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!".
You seem to have missed it:zapperzero said:Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be?
The future costs for decommissioning all of France's nuclear facilities (including reactors, research facilities and fuel cycle plants )and disposing of radioactive wastes are estimated to be €79.4 billion ($103.8 billion). The cost of demolishing facilities totals €31.9 billion ($41.7 billion), including €18.4 billion ($24.1 billion) for dismantling EDF's 58 currently operating reactors, the court estimates. The costs of managing used fuel are put at €14.8 billion ($19.3 billion), while waste disposal will cost €28.4 billion ($37.1 billion).
wizwom said:No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous.
You seem to have missed it:
These costs do not include the decommissioning costs already paid, for 8 power plants and the prototype. For the purposes of the article, the construction and decommissioning costs were lumped together for all of these, which worked out to €18 billion ($24 billion).
zapperzero said:It seems those funds that are set aside to pay for decommissioning US NPPs, really aren't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/s...unds-to-close-them-lag.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
wizwom said:The hurdle is not financial so much as regulatory. For example, Zion, which now has been closed 14 years, is still only defueled.
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/deco...tor/zion-nuclear-power-station-units-1-2.html
pm35 said:... A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act...
pm35 said:With nuclear there is always a low probability of a major disaster of which we have now had 2 in the last 30 years.
Imagine a worse disaster than the tsunami: How about a massive solar event knocking out off-site power to hundreds of reactors - all cooking off and relying on those diesel generators which may or may not be available. Very low probability, but very high consequences.
...but the fatal blow to nuclear is really the price tag of new plants - which increases every time a new flaw is exposed. A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act, after that it's dead in the US.
Spinalcold said:The problem I find with this debate is that there don't seem to be number that can accurately sum all the costs of each individual energy industry so that we can compare them.
... or estimated in some cases. There's one and only one data point appearing for *new* US advanced nuclear as EIA describes it - the AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, coming online for ~$14 billion per 2.2 GW, and that price is not yet final.zapperzero said:The price per kilowatt-hour is known...
mheslep said:... or estimated in some cases. There's one and only one data point appearing for *new* US advanced nuclear as EIA describes it - the AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, coming online for ~$14 billion per 2.2 GW, and that price is not yet final.
zapperzero said:The price per kilowatt-hour is known. Nuclear is just a bit more expensive than wind, while combined cycle gas is the cheapest and solar is hugely expensive (3x the others), probably reflecting a tech still in its infancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
wizwom said:Actual capacity factors are much lower - more on the order of 25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor.
Regarding "Nuclear is just a bit more expensive than wind"? My point was that nuclear might be considerably more expensive than wind for the moment.zapperzero said:I was being charitable.
mheslep said:Regarding "Nuclear is just a bit more expensive than wind"? My point was that nuclear might be considerably more expensive than wind for the moment.
wizwom said:But total lifecycle cost for nuclear is around 6 cents a KWh; for wind it is more like 17.